Harry Potter and the Deathly Shallows

Er, Hallows: Deathly Hallows. It was more than a decade ago that I heard about the Harry Potter series. My wife, who was the first adult in our neighborhood to become Potter Proud and Rowling Ready, told me about the clever Mrs. Rowling and her school full of witches, wizards, magical creatures, and spells. It sounded like a cross between Tom Brown’s Schooldaysand J.R.R. Tolkien. The best thing about the former, I’ve always thought, was that it provided George MacDonald Fraser the inspiration for his hilarious if also troubling “Flashman Series.” As for Tolkien, I think Edmund Wilson had it about right in his 1956 essay “Oo, Those Awful Orcs!” (“Certain people,” Wilson observed, “have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy.”)

Anyway, I didn’t pay much attention to Mrs. Rowling’s creations until one evening in 2000 when I wandered into a Borders Bookstore (remember Borders?) in New York. I had just published a book called Experiments Against Reality:The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age and I was a man with a mission. I strode boldly up to customer service and asked the clerk whether they had copies of this indispensable volume. The answer, I am happy to report, was yes: they had a grand total of 3 copies in stock.

Now, 3 is not a very large number of copies, but I have to say that I found even that modest requisition heartwarming. You will find it hard to believe, but there were many bookshops across this great land that had no copies whatsoever. No wonder traditional bookshops are having such a hard time of it. (Commercial alert for PJMedia readers who wish to impress their friends and stymie their enemies: you can still become a proud owner of Experiments Against Reality: Click here and Amazon will do the rest. Go ahead, you owe it to yourself.)

As I say, I at first found it heartwarming that that particular Borders possessed 3 copies of my new book. At first. For as I proceeded around the bookshop I noticed large piles of another book, not my book. And when I say large, I mean stacks and stacks of the things. Nor were these literary obelisks congregated around one table. No, they were spread all over the main floor: veritable Eiffel towers of books — scores, no hundreds of copies of that one title. Not my book, alas, but Ms. Rowling’s. The Prisoner of Azkaban, I believe, the third in the septology. Original sin being what it is, I confess that the experience jaundiced my view of Harry Potter. OK, there are no spells or incantations in Experiments Against Reality (did I mention a copy could be yours in just a day or two by clicking here?), nor are theredragons, impossible potions, a game called Quidditch, or cute English school kids who grow up to model for Lancôme. But there is a fair amount about Good and Evil, the battle between which was (I am told) important to the success of the Harry Potter series. Alas, I did not think to personify Evil in the figure of a disembodied, snake-like creature with a memorably creepy name. Perhaps that’s why there were only 3 copies of Experiments Against Reality at Borders (available right now at Amazon, by the way, if you just click here) while there were 300 or maybe 3000 copies of The Prisoner of Azkaban.

Perhaps.Or perhaps not. In any event, about the time our son became potty about Potter, I read through the first installment of the series, which in England is called Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. (“Philosopher’s stone” was apparently considered too recondite a reference for American readers, so the book appeared here under the title Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, whatever a “sorcerer’s stone” might be.) It’s quite a lot of fun, as all the world knows, even if it would be unlikely to pass muster with Edmund Wilson.

It’s often remarked in The Literature that the Harry Potter books get increasingly dark as the series progress. There’s something to this, though I just saw the last movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II, (which John Boot reviews elsewhere at PJM) and, though physically dark because of the 3-D glasses, I found it less grim than its predecessor. Maybe it’s because (surely I am not giving anything away?) Good triumphs in the end. Maybe even the cast, after all these years, oozed a sense of relief that, at long last, they could move on to something besides Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Do not bring Edmund Wilson. He wouldn’t like it. But most young teens will, including, I think, the young teens that survive somewhere in most of us older folk.

Click here to view the 39 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

39 Comments, 25 Threads

1.
cthulhu

For some reason, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” always made me think of laparoscopic surgery….

Always had a problem with that title. As soon as I read the book I knew it was supposed to be “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.” Sure enough, I found out that was the UK title. Apparently American publishers thought Americans were too ignorant to understand the reference.

I have read all the books and seen all the movies and have enjoyed them all, some more than others.

Having just got back from seeing “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II” I have to say that it is one of the weaker of the movies. That’s just the way it is and I don’t know if any other director could have done more with the material they had to work with after having split what should have been a single movie into two.

The older folks with teenage hearts were out in force at the midnight showing of “Deathly Hallows” I attended. Parents and kids alike were dressing up and having a ball (I counted three Voldemorts and ten Bellatrix Lestranges, all old enough to drink) while total strangers bonded over their mutual love of the books. My friends and I wound up at an all-night diner at 3 AM, and literally everyone in our section had been to the premiere showings. It was–what’s that word? Oh yes–fun.

I suspect that Mr. Wilson would be as unwelcome with us as we would be with him. He strikes me as the kind of guy who’d spend the whole thing complaining about popcorn prices and then tell us we were talking too loud.

Not to worry old chap. I never heard of Joel McCrea either. But I’ve seen his movies now. Same for Greta Garbo. Having seen about everything else, I watched one of her movies ( as nothing else was on ) and was impressed.

HP has been a well done series. And yuo can watch it with your family without getting embarrassed. I think that counts for something nowadays.

Sorry to say, you are giving something away by saying ‘good triumphs in the end’. that’s like saying -’im not giving anything away, but the bad guy doesn’t win’. Thanks – you just ruined it for me. thanks but no thanks.

Never mind the basic genre, never mind the basic audience, never mind the lack of any follow up, never mind all the time to have read the books multiple times, you actually thought it was a complete toss up over who would win?

That’s almost as baffling as citing Edmund Wilson favorably when mentioning Tolkien!

” As for Tolkien, I think Edmund Wilson had it about right in his 1956 essay “Oo, Those Awful Orcs!” ”

With this, Mr Kimball and his book lose my sympathy. To call Tolkien’s work juvenile trash is an indictment of the critic, not of Tolkien. I have BA in classics, a PhD in philosophy and teach at a major university. I know the difference between literature and juvenile trash. I’ve read my fair share of trash and still enjoy a good trashy novel now and again, the way I might enjoy a bag of Cheetos. Most of the time, however, I read real literature. I have read (many times) and loved, and intend to continue reading, Tolstoy, Proust, Mann, Eliot, Wodehouse, Patrick O’Brian, and the other modern classics. I spend more time with the real classics – Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Livy, Plato, and so forth. But I have a real soft spot in my heart for the lesser-read glories of medieval literature: Beowulf, Malory, the Gawaine poet, Chaucer, Spenser (who more or less counts as medieval), the Icelandic sagas. (Without at least a passing acquaintance with Icelandic literature it’s impossible to understand what Tolkien’s really doing in The Silmarillion, by the way.) These are the figures Tolkien ought to be classed with, and he stands up well next to *any* of them. The fact that he wrote in the 20th century and so is in some ways as much modern as he is medieval shouldn’t count against him any more than ought the fact that Spenser wrote in the 16th and is in some ways as much of a Renaissance as a medieval man. His works are among the highest peaks of modern literature and the poor benighted people who can’t see that have an impoverished view of what literature is.

Harry Potter, by the way, counts, compared with any of the other authors named, as juvenile trash.

Don’t forget Captain Future and the Space Emperor. There are some very moving passages between Grag and Otho and the figure of Curt Newton, born of the star-crossed lunar tragedy of his parents passing is perhaps one of the most memorable in all of fantastic literature.

Edmond Hamilton evokes all the grandeur of Joinville and Louis IX while at once provoking the age old question of the meaning of life and what it means to be human vis-a-vis Simon (the living brain) Wright, who sees the galaxy through his now shorn essence ala the fitful, flickering, flames of Plato’s Cave, which it happens, is hidden on the moon.

Right on! Michael (and I like your reading list, too). I learned a long time ago never to trust the judgement of anyone who dislikes Tolkien. But I’ve been a fan of Mr. Kimball’s, so I’ll be charitable and credit him with ignorance: say 50/50 odds he’s never actually read Lord of the Rings all the way through to the end.

As a fan of J.K. Rowlings ‘Harry Potter’ series of books, I find the movies (with the exception of the first, which is the most faithful to the book) to be progressively awful. Each successive movie deviates further from the source material, sometimes taking careless liberties with characters and ideas that play pivotal roles in future films (I guess we’re supposed to forget that the entrance to the Room of Requirement was destroyed in ‘Order of the Phoenix?). The directors of these films apparently never bother to read beyond the particular book their filming.

I had high hopes for ‘The Deathly Hallows’, as Pt. 1 seemed to follow the source material quite closely. But as Pt. 2 progressed, I realized this film would also disappoint. Plot elements are pointlessly changed, while other essential plot points cut entirely. The final battle is impressive to watch, but is ultimately stripped of any meaning or poignancy by being drug out into a pure action scene that bears no resemblance to the brief but moving ending of the book.

For those who have not read the books, I’m sure ‘Deathly Hallows’ will be an exciting and fitting end to the lucrative movie series. But for me, it was just another pretty disappointment.

Couldn’t agree with you more concerning pt. 2. Very disappointed in the movie overall. The director seemed more concerned with special effects than story line. Too many changes from the book, and the end (not the epilogue) was completely insufficent. I will miss this series, I just wish the movie had lived up to the book.

There’s really no way you can take a series that is full of fluff and make consistently good movies. I’m a fan, of the theme and plot, not so much the style or even the write herself. Which, is probably why fans enjoy taking set theme and running with it. Most fantasy seems to be all preconditioned and/or remakes these days…

This stuff is for kids…and that’s fine. The books are unreadable except for children but the movies can be entertaining if one goes along with the drift and doesn’t demand that they “add up” in a cohesive and liner fashion.

Michael S. is exactly right, above. Roger Kimball’s citation of Edmund Wilson slapdash, drive-by literary assassination of Tolkien from 50 years ago has long since been superseded by not only more objective and scholarly essays but, more importantly, by the hundreds of millions of people who bought not just “LOTR” and “The Hobbit” but also “The Silmarillion” (LOTR sold over 150 million copies, Hobbit over 100 million). While I realize that popularity does not equal heft, it’s interesting that Mr. Kimball, whom I would bet adhere to William Buckley’s high opinion of the common man vis-a-vis the intellectual “elites,” throws that position out the window when it comes to fantasy literature and movies. I’m a conservative with a Ph.D. in history and I’ve been reading and re-reading Tolkien’s works since 1976; anyone who thinks they are “juvenile trash” has a heart of stone, and probably a mind as well. The matters dealt with therein–the pain and fear of death; having courage against overwhelming odds; friendship and loyalty; avoiding idolatry–are far from “juvenile.” I only made it through the first two Potter books (ditto for my kids), but insofar as Harry and his Hogwarts’ friends deal with the same issues, they are valuable and worthy of respect.

A couple points. This wasn’t ever meant to rival the classics. It’s for FUN!.

The one thing that’s nice if you want to say something serious abot HP, is he and his allies NEVER try to understand Voldemorte, or reaason with him, or any other silly pc crap. They mean to defeat him.

Isn’t it nice to have a hero is isn’t an equivicating glob of goo? He’s a young John Wayne out to destroy his enemy. Not his opponent, his enemy. Do you think that message is lost on today’s youth? I don’t.

Remember the council after the siege of Minas Tirith? Aragorn chose to march: to do what he could to draw Sauron’s attention to make Frodo’s task easier. Rowling’s wizards chose to sit and wait for deliverance, even those who should have known better. They don’t even “sit, enduring siege after siege,” they just cower and hide and surrender. Maybe the modern English are that passive, but wizards shouldn’t be modern with their longevity. They have centenarians as active as real people half their age and had a civil war within the memory of the young adult generation.

In the Lord of the Rings Gondor fights to preserve civilization. All of Gondor. Not just the special people. A large force of the armies of Gondor and Rohan marches to make it possible for the ringbearers to complete their quest. The special people may make it possible for normal people to do what is needed sure. Without Aragorn most of the Gondorean militia would have been tied down by the threat of Umbar’s navy and Minas Tirith would have likely fallen, but it was the soldiers that fought. Even the scouring of the shire was accomplished not by the might of the returning veteran hobbits, but by the marshaled might of the Tookish militia once the hobbits were reminded they could be strong.

In Harry Potter if you’re not special you might as well be a sheep. Only the special people can save you. “Good” men do nothing, but as long as the special people don’t do nothing evil doesn’t triumph.

“Special” people are old hat. Somebody’s always the “chosen one.” Harry Potter, “Neo,” Luke Skywalker, Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, Sir Galahad, Cú Chulainn ,Mithras, Gilgamesh, and I don’t know who else. Whether they start out as regular guys or supermen, they’re still heroes. If you believe Joseph Campbell (and I don’t), the Hero archetype is really you, or some part of your phyche that has to repeat the mythical hero’s journey on a smaller scale, in real life. Something like that, anyway. People like stories about heroes for some reason.

Being a democratic America, I do feel a bit strange dealing with the idea that someone is “chosen” – picked out specially by God, nature or circumstances to save everybody else. Our heroes tend to be hardworking, intelligent, ambitious men and women whose “boons” to mankind (to borrow a Campbell term) are achieved without any help from fairy godmothers. Or else they’re just regular folks who step up and do great things when great things are called for.

The only thing that bothered me about the Harry Potter books was the division of humanity into wizards and “muggles.” Some people are born naturally special and magical, others are just regular and boring. It’s hard not to see a kind of wish-fulfilling elitism in that.

Nate,
I think you kind of missed the point. Voldemort did not resort to violence on a mass scale right away. He was more subversive, placing his agents in key positions with in the ministry. The whole of the wizarding world was so busy putting it’s head in the sand, that by the time came for a fight, their was not fight to be had. Thus the Order of the Phoenix.
Everytime Harry tried to warn the world about the coming of the dark lord, he was ignored.

Speaking to the idea the the world was waiting for someone special to lead them out of the darkness. This is just one of several stories about a “savior” written in the using Christian archetypes. Harry was the sacrificial lamb who dies and is re-born so he can vanquish the wicked dark lord and lead his people to a promised land. He is reluctant and does not want the burden, but he does what he is asked to do because it is the right thing. He does not want to die and even tries to find a loop hole suggesting the Nevile might be the true “Chosen One.” In the end, he accepts what he must do and bravely faces his fate with faith that good will win out. The archetypal images are pretty clear.

Secondly, Harry is not extraordinary in many ways. He does not get the best grades. He is not the most talented wizard. He is very lucky, is a natural on a broom, and he has a core of people who care about and believe in him. This allows him to fullfil his destiny.

We spend way to much time looking for “lessons” in literature. Sometimes, literature simple tells the truth. The truth is, often times trouble is coming and we are so busy putting our heads in the sand until it is upon. I am not a conservative by the defintion most PJM readers would define one, but I pick up a pretty ominous theme in the Potter books that is very much in line with much of the concern expressed by PJM readers about the current administration. The Potter books demonstrate what happens when good people sit by and do nothing, a pattern that seems to repeat itself.

The Potter series can give those who are interested in teaching the younger generation a common point of discussion. For instance if we need an illustration of how the MSM works to create a public opinion out of misinformation just refer to “The Order of the Phoenix” and how people thought of Harry (and Dumbledoor) because of what was in the papers.

How many people today think Sarah Palin actually said she could see Russia from her front porch? As conservatives we see how it works, but how many of us could have a really meaningful discussion with anyone under 25 about it without sounding like we are crying in our beer?

While it might be argued Mr. Kimball’s book contains more important information (Kimball seems to), preaching it goes nowhere. There are many good tools of illustration and discussion buried in the Potter series that can be used to *connect* and teach – if anyone bothers.